| Matter of Edwards v Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09643 [46 AD3d 972] |
| December 6, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Vivian Edwards, Appellant, vWachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Charlotte Flynn of counsel), forWachtel Lipton Rosen & Katz and another, respondents.
Crew III, J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 15,2006, which ruled, among other things, that claimant had no further causally related disability.
Claimant was injured in 1988 when involved in an automobile accident that occurred whileshe was engaged in her employment. Claimant applied for and received disability benefits fromthe date of the accident through January 1989. In August 1989, claimant was awardedcompensation for two weeks of lost time between January 1989 and August 1989.
In the ensuing years, claimant received physical therapy for her injuries and periodiccompensation payments. Ultimately, in March 2006, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge issueda decision finding that claimant no longer suffered a causally related disability based upon thereport submitted by the carrier's independent medical examiner. The Workers' CompensationBoard upheld that determination, prompting this appeal by claimant.
We affirm. Where, as here, the Board's determination is supported by substantial [*2]evidence, it will not be disturbed despite the existence of evidencethat might have supported a different result (see Matter of Dollard v Val Tech Research, Inc., 40 AD3d 1332,1333-1334 [2007]). The report of the carrier's independent medical examiner providedsubstantial evidence to support the Board's determination, and the fact that claimant's physicianprovided medical evidence to the contrary simply presented a credibility issue, the determinationof which was the province of the Board (see Matter of Patterson v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 23 AD3d870, 871 [2005]). We have considered claimant's remaining contention that the Workers'Compensation Law Judge erred in denying her request for an extension of time to complete thedepositions of the physicians and find it equally unavailing.
Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, withoutcosts.